According to Baroness Richmond, a member of the UK Supreme Court and an 'architect' of the Children Act 1989 this primary legislation was intended to make Family Law more 'child-centred',
As a result sometimes case laws build up on the back of an assumption made in a previous precedent, like a House of Cards. For example, in a judgment made by Sir Roualeyn Cumming-Bruce it was stated that,
Lord Donaldson made his precedent despite
the work of the 'academic' Professor Sir Michael Rutter and 'well-established authority.' Instead these two Case Laws form the backbone of what is described in UK family proceedings, as well as other jurisdictions around the World, as the 'Tender Years' doctrine which is the legal authority or justification for judges in the lower courts to award access and custody to mothers.
"One of the purposes of the Children Act 1989 was to redress the balance: to promote a more equal sharing of responsibility for children between mothers and fathers and to promote the maintenance a good relationship as possible between children and each of their parents should, unhappily, their parents not be living together"(4 February 2003).However as well as primary legislation there is secondary legislation in the form of Case Laws made by judges in the High Court and Court of Appeal, and now the Supreme Court. Formal justice requires 'consistency' therefore judges in the lower courts must adhere to the ratio decidendi, or rationale of previous cases and follow the stare decisis or precedents established by prior decisions in the same level or higher courts.
As a result sometimes case laws build up on the back of an assumption made in a previous precedent, like a House of Cards. For example, in a judgment made by Sir Roualeyn Cumming-Bruce it was stated that,
"It has also been said that it is not a principle but a matter of observation of human nature in the case of upbringing of children of tender years, that given the normal commitment of a father to support the family, the mother, for practical and emotional reasons, is usually the right person to bring up the children". (Per Sir Roualeyn Cumming-Bruce in Re H (a minor) 1 FLR 51, CA.1990)
Following this judgment, the former Master of the Rolls, Lord Donaldson, in 1992, set a precedent which has been described as a 'cornerstone' of family proceedings,
"At the risk of being told by academics hereafter that my views are contrary to well-established authority, I think that there is a rebuttable presumption of fact that the best interests of a baby are best served by being with its mother, and I stress the word 'baby'. When we are moving on to whatever age it may be appropriate to describe the baby as having become a child, different considerations may well apply. But as far as babies are concerned, the starting point is, I think, that it should be with its mother". (Lord Donaldson MR, Re D (A Minor) (Residence Order, 1992) 2 FLR 332, 336. CA).
Case Laws in UK
Family Proceedings
Shared Parenting
In the same year Lord Donaldson made his precedent the 'academic' Professor Sir Michael Rutter, was knighted for his contribution to children's welfare. He found that fathers can be equally important as mothers even to small children and 'most important of all there has been repeated findings that many children are not damaged by deprivation. ('Maternal Deprivation; Reassessed, Second Edition, 1981, p217).
